FW: descriptive scholarly accounts of religious identityandjudicial behav...
nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 24 21:00:44 PDT 2010
"One side wants their
crosses and public land and will make any argument to keep them. That
side is unconcerned about any larger claims except the outcome that they
get to put their religious symbols
on public land and thus get the government to implicitly back their
faith. This may indeed be a function of their religious values rather
than constituitional values, since in other contexts many of these
people are against "big government" -- except when
it comes to big crosses and other monuments on government land.
Perhaps all this is theological. If you believe that you have a mission
to convert everyone to your religious beliefs, then why not use the
government to do it.
other wants religious liberty for all Americans and thus believes that
the government should keep its hands out of the religion business.
Perhaps that is also theological. If
you don't think it is your job to convert others maybe you think it is
not the government's job either."
I love the way
Paul identifies the good guys (his team) and the bad
Here is another way of looking at it:
side--the bad guys-- wishes to censor public displays they find
offensive and impose its narrow view of the public square to exercise a
heckler's veto on everyone else.
The other side--the good
guys--values tolerance and diversity and merely wishes
displays that are meaningful to them be part of a public square open to
everyone else. They wish not to control public culture, but merely to
have a fair share of it.
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform" --Dick Gaughan (from the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof